/
profile differences among the countries.rompt identification of agents profile differences among the countries.rompt identification of agents

profile differences among the countries.rompt identification of agents - PDF document

calandra-battersby
calandra-battersby . @calandra-battersby
Follow
380 views
Uploaded On 2015-11-08

profile differences among the countries.rompt identification of agents - PPT Presentation

DISPATCHES nificant or clinically meaningful differences between thefrom the United States Thailand and MalawiBangkok Thailand or Lilongwe MalawiWe thank Trek Diagnostic Systems Ltd West Suss ID: 186971

DISPATCHES nificant clinically meaningful differences

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Pdf The PPT/PDF document "profile differences among the countries...." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

profile differences among the countries.rompt identification of agents associated with emerg-depend on existing surveillance activities for emergingpathogens and antimicrobial resistance. Although the DISPATCHES nificant or clinically meaningful differences between thefrom the United States, Thailand, and Malawi.Bangkok, Thailand; or Lilongwe, Malawi.We thank Trek Diagnostic Systems Ltd., West Sussex,England, for providing the Sensititre YeastOne trays that madeDr. Archibald is the medical director of RegenerationTechnologies, Inc., a biotechnology company in Florida.Previously, he was the acting medical director of the Epidemic1. World Health Organization. Report on infectious diseases 2000: over-coming antimicrobial resistance. WHO/CDC/2000.2. Geneva: TheOrganization; 2000.2. Shears P. Antibiotic resistance in the tropics. Trans R Soc Trop Med3. Davey KG, Johnson EM, Holmes AD, Szekely A, Warnock DW. In-zole and itraconazole. J Antimicrob Chemother 1998;42:217–20.4. Pfaller M, Zhang J, Messer S, Tumberland M, Mbidde E, Jessup C, etisolates from Ugandan AIDS patients.5. Pfaller MA, Zhang J, Messer SA, Brandt ME, Hajjeh RA, Jessup CJ,United States and Africa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother6. Mitchell TG, Perfect JR. Cryptococcosis in the era of AIDS—1007. Powderly WG. Cryptococcal meningitis and AIDS. Clin Infect Dis8. Heyderman RS, Gangaidzo IT, Hakin JG, Mielke J, Taziwa A,Musvaire P, et al. Cryptococcal meningitis in human immunodefi-9. Archibald LK, McDonald LC, Rheanpumikankit S,Tansuphaswadikul S, Chaovanich A, Eampokalap B, et al. Fever andhuman immunodeficiency virus infection as sentinels for emerging 10. Archibald LK, McDonald LC, Nwanyanwu O, Kazembe P, DobbieH, Tokars J, et al. Ahospital-based prevalence survey of bloodstreamand therapy. J Infect Dis 2000;181:1414–20. 11. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Reference2nd ed. Approved standard. M27-A2. Wayne (PA): The Committee;12. Franzot SP, Hamdan JS. In vitro susceptibilities of clinical and envi-drugs. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1996;40:822–4. 13. Klepser ME, Pfaller MA. Variation in electrophoretic karyotype andat a university-affiliated teaching hospital from 1987 to 1994. J14. Brandt ME, Pfaller MA, Hajjeh RA, Hamill RJ, Pappas PG, ReingoldAL, et al. Trends in antifungal drug susceptibility of isolates in the United States: 1992 to 1994 and 1996 to1998. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2001;45:3065–9.15. Espinel-Ingroff A, Pfaller M, Messer SA, Knapp CC, Killian S,Norris HA, et al. Multicenter comparison of the Sensititre YeastOneClinical Laboratory Standards M27-Areference method for testingclinical isolates of common and emerging spp., and other yeasts and yeast-like organisms. J Clin Address for correspondence: Lennox Archibald, RegenerationTechnologies, Inc., P.O. Box 2650, 11621 Research Circle, Alachua, FL DISPATCHES Emerging Infectious Diseases • www.cdc.gov/eid • Vol. 10, No. 1, January 2004145 Table 2. Percentage of Cryptococcus neoformans isolates susceptible at each MIC dilution % Susceptible MICs (g/mL) U.S. isolates Thailand isolates Malawi isolates Amphotericin B 0.5 3 1 50 72 31 2 100 100 100 Fluconazole 1 5 2 30 4 40 21 25 8 90 83 87 16 100 100 94 32 100 Itraconazole 0.016 5 0.030 15 14 50 0.060 75 93 87 0.125 10 100 100 5-Flucytosine 1 6 2 5 7 12 4 60 72 69 8 100 100 94 16 100 Ketoconazole 0.008 5 0.016 20 12 0.030 35 14 62 0.060 90 79 75 0.125 95 93 81 0.250 100 100 100